Our View: U.S. Supreme Court should uphold state Equal Rights law

Comment

The Daily Telegram - Adrian, MI

Writer

Posted Oct. 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Posted Oct. 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM

ADRIAN

People following last week’s U.S. Supreme Court arguments on Michigan’s 2006 equal rights law can be forgiven if they felt confused. How could opponents argue that Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning state-based racial discrimination is racially discriminatory?

It all boils down to this misguided belief: It was reasonable to make Proposal 2 backers go through the constitutional amendment process in 2006 to create a statewide ban on racial bias. (Supporters did, winning 58 percent of Michigan’s votes, and winning in 80 of 83 counties.) Making opponents go through the same constitutional process if they want to reinstate racial bias, though, would be an “unfair” burden.

Critics of Michigan’s law did win a dubious 8-7 decision, split along party lines, last November in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Its majority accepted an odd claim that the 14th Amendment should prevent this statute addressing race from being in Michigan’s state constitution. That’s odd because the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the right of citizens to vote cannot be abridged on “account of race, color, (etc.) ... .” If protecting racial equality is good enough for the U.S. Constitution, it’s hard to believe justices would find it inappropriate for Michigan.

The appeals court also relied on a misunderstanding of how Michigan’s university admissions policies actually are created. Policies are no longer set by university regents, who might be lobbied or ousted by voters. Instead, such rules are now made by unelected school staff — officials who voters have no "political process" means to make accountable.

Attorney General Bill Schuette was correct to appeal November’s ruling all the way to the Supreme Court. Not only did Michigan voters make the right decision to end state-based preferences based on race, gender, ethnicity and national origin — they also took the only practical course available. If opponents want to reverse it, it’s hardly “unfair” that they take the same path.

As we’ve said before, public universities have other and better ways than affirmative action to help disadvantaged students. Reaching out to those in low-income areas and families would still help diversity, but would not automatically disadvantage students of other races — including Asian Americans, whom many universities claim to be “overrepresented.”

Laws and policies favoring people with certain colored skin at the expense of others with different colored skin are repugnant. It’s no surprise those who have opposed Proposal 2 and Michigan’s law have argued themselves into contradictions.

Page 2 of 2 - Hopefully, sometime this summer when the Supreme Court sorts it out, the rights of Michigan voters will prevail.